I enjoy reading your thoughts,theories,etc.
I am a rationalist, but I don’t disagree w/your theories as beeing more than small possibilities, they do seem to be larger possibilties than most rationalists are willing to admit.

Anotger theory that interets me is the theory of archetypes, as originally thought up by Carl Jung. Can symbols and mythical symolbs at that-have a positive affect on the psyche and on energies{so long as they are recogbnized as merely sub-conciuos/unconciuos shared symboloisms}? In other words, can “symbolic” religions that find mere psychological inpiration on symbols,myths,archetypes be valid?

This is somethign I am currently mulling over in my mind.

Keep up the thought-provoking work Kurt. :D

In Reason:
The very irreverand Bill

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”-Christopher Hitchens

“The greatest weapon against errors of any kind is REASON”
Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms: the one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it.
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest”
-THOMAS PAINE

Homunculus as to the failure of man to live to its potential, We Christians call it original Sin. I am glad to see that the effects of original sin can be cured scientifically by removing testorerone. No wonder women are so much better than us.

Frank, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Both men and women lie, probably equally though not necessarily always in the same styles. Call it original sin if you want. That’s an interesting tradition: “try as much as you want, but you’re condemned to your flawed ancestry.”

I wonder how prevalent lying would be among people if not for religions that coerce and compel their members to understand the world in absurd ways.

Actually, that was a lie. I don’t wonder about it at all. The answer is obvious to me. What about you, Frank?

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

You’re right Homunculus people lie becuse of religion. Scientists just tell the truth. I don’t wonder how silly you have gotten homunculus. I think your excessive brown nosing to the veritable Vericitatus has affected your ability to reason. The intelligent posts on this forum have been replaced with emotional nonsense, conversion stories, strange ufo dialogue, and the offensive picture here and there. It has gotten so I enjoy reading Mudfoot more than anyone else.

[quote author=“frankr”]
The intelligent posts on this forum have been replaced with emotional nonsense, conversion stories, strange ufo dialogue, and the offensive picture here and there. It has gotten so I enjoy reading Mudfoot more than anyone else.

I suppose you imagine yourself to be one of the prime, “intelligent posters”, waxing scholarly on your religious myths.

If myth were our focus—instead of putting myth back where it belongs, in the realm of fiction—then you might have a point. As it is, our deconversions, and our arguments with the latest proclaimers of myth (UFOs), however often emotion may enter into those threads (being human, I happen to adore emotions)—that’s exactly what this forum is all about. It’s about shedding blind faith.

Would Sam likely assume that we instantaneously become non-theists via the “revelation” of reading his book? I doubt it. I assume he’s well aware that there’s a lot involved in such a life shift, including how we got to where we are today, how we’re coping with it and moving forward, since that knowledge and empathy will be needed by others who are yet to wake up. This is something that open-minded humans enjoy doing, frankr—we commiserate, bond and laugh at our previous folly. You oughta try it sometime, just for kicks .

_

Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

I wonder how prevalent lying would be among people if not for religions that coerce and compel their members to understand the world in absurd ways.

Actually, that was a lie. I don’t wonder about it at all. The answer is obvious to me

To me homunculus seems to be insinuating that if not for religon people would not lie. Do you agree with this point?

I don’t speak for homunculous, HS, but we’ll see if he chooses to respond to your query.

For my part, I think lying is a sort of survival instinct, a trait that can certainly be nurtured along by being taught to believe in what amounts to a huge lie. How can you do anything but lie when your entire worldview is built on one?

_

Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

To me homunculus seems to be insinuating that if not for religon people would not lie.

Wake up, Humble Servant. Read some of the history that surrounds religions. Befriend someone who’s smarter than you. Check out John Shelby Spong’s books. Or, better yet, sign up for a survey course in philosophy.

My apologies to you if you’ve already done all of the above. I don’t mean to imply that religious people are stupid. Just soundly sleeping.

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

[quote author=“Jasper”]Kurt
Teilhard de Chardin expands on the idea of “‘cosmic consciousness’‘. If he is not on your bookshelf, he was a scientist (palaeontology) and a Jesuit priest (though forbidden by the Vatican to promote his ideas). His opus “‘The Phenomenon of Man”’ (published posthumously, I think, in 1955 to avoid excommunication!) is an attempt to present a homogeneous view of the universe. He was, of course, completely opposed to the Cartesian view. You may find his concept of’a ‘noosphere’’ of interest, where he sketches a vision of a spiritually evolving universe, where the potential for consciousness is everywhere in cosmic matter. His ideas were derided by some scientists at the time, but the expansion of knowledge in neurology, psychology, and the influence of quantum physics has led to renewed interest in his ideas.
I find your posts illuminating.
Jasper.

I might add that Hegel, considered by some the greatest philosopher ever, in his belief of spirit as the engine behind evolution (not in the Darwinian sense though) can be considered very relevant to this thread.

To me, the ID theory as presented by Kurt is like poetry. It enriches our lives but falls apart when you try to translate it into something that can be practically applied to our reality.

Deldotvee, I am for reviving this thread, too, simply for the reason of having the pleasure to read more from Kurt, Iisbliss, ckitzman, homunculus and yourself. Frankr, you are not forgotten either for your contributions.

“I might add that Hegel, considered by some the greatest philosopher ever, in his belief of spirit as the engine behind evolution (not in the Darwinian sense though) can be considered very relevant to this thread.

To me, the ID theory as presented by Kurt is like poetry. .” Thomas Orr

Some might consider Hegel the greatest but I think more would consider David Hume to be.

Hume ended philosophy as a way to knowledge of the universe by simply contuining to ask one simple question “How do you know that?”

Intelligent Design is just the Argument from Design rehashed. Hume countered that argument very effectively (He wrote some considerable time before Darwin by the way)

As Hume said:

If we take in our hands any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.